Home > Uncategorized > Port Feasibility Study Released

Port Feasibility Study Released

Humboldt Bay is “not suitable” for modern cargo operations. So says the just-released Redwood Marine Terminal Feasibility Study. The train isn’t a good idea, either.

An excerpt:

“There is concern about the adequacy of a restored North Coast rail infrastructure to efficiently service high volume and time sensitive intermodal container markets beyond California.

− These concerns include: sufficient train bypass sidings; frequency of weather disruptions; number of grade level crossings; ability to accommodate 7,000 to 8,000-foot unit trains; movement of trains including night traffic through Eureka and other communities along the rail corridor. In addition, there is concern over interaction with other rail traffic (freight and passenger rail traffic) and if priority will be given to intermodal container trains.

− Potential port users would be concerned about the ability of the local and regional rail system to accommodate the surge of import intermodal rail traffic at the same time as handling the return flow of export containers by rail for loading on the ship. Each call by a 6,000 TEU transpacific container ship that discharges and loads all its cargo at Humboldt Bay (3,000 import and 3,000 export containers) would generate 24 unit trains (12 import trains and 12 export trains assuming 250 containers per unit train).”

  1. Anonymous
    November 29, 2007 at 11:24 pm | #1

    “to efficiently service high volume and time sensitive intermodal container markets.”

    Keep in mind the sneaker issue not discussed is the real opposition to rail: passenger rail bringing more tourists, and thus, eventually more residents to Humboldt County. Argue anything except the real issues.

    Just like the 101 bypass, with the opposition being truly opposed because they fear it will spur more residential development once access to and from 101 is eased.

  2. Anonymous
    November 29, 2007 at 11:33 pm | #2

    What 11:24 doesn’t understand is that passenger service isn’t even being considered.

  3. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 4:28 am | #3

    Yeah. I’m not sure where it talks about passenger rail in this report. Can you, 11:24 p.m.?

  4. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 8:25 am | #4

    More tourism leading to more residents is the “real” issue?

    Well then, better shut down the tourism and hospitality board, quick!

    Limit travel on 101 and 299 to “locals only”?

    Yeah, now I’m getting it! Turn off the web sites! Shut those tourist-attracting parks! Maybe we can have images of redwood trees censored from the Internet on the grounds of Humboldt’s Homeland Security….

  5. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 8:26 am | #5

    What 11:33 doesn’t understand is that once rail service is established, passenger rail would come next. That a blog filled with progressives want to shield this fact and fear, gee, I’m so surprised.

  6. Jane Doe
    November 30, 2007 at 8:30 am | #6

    Humboldt County will be hidden behind the misty curtain like the fabled Isle of Avalon and only the pure at heart (those looking to buy weed) will find us. Happy Friday!

  7. Jane Doe
    November 30, 2007 at 8:36 am | #7

    Where did you read that, 8:26? Everything I have read (for years now) has stated that passenger service is even less feasible than freight because of the stricter standards required. Do you have solid source for that information? Just about everyone would love passenger and freight service here. Not believing it is possible may mean I am pessimistic or realistic, but certainly not anti-railroad.

  8. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 9:16 am | #8

    Jane, progressives are not worried about freight transportation, plain and simple. Not on a rail mountain pass, not through Richardson Grove.

    The prospect of improved transportation of people to the North Coast is the threat. Like the NRA, opposition is raised any prospect, no matter how small or unlikely. It’s the slippery slope theory that spurs the opposing of everything within sight. The fact that passenger rail would be a long way off behind resumption of freight transport isn’t even part of the equation.

    Think of it like a chess game. You’re seeing the next two moves. They’re looking 15 moves from now, and stopping things before you even consider them as a real possibility. Everything is a real possibility to an activist, whether you’re left or right.

  9. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 9:17 am | #9

    What is it with the black / white mind set of conservatives? If you said it was infeasible to build a road to moon they would call you anti-moon and claim if you loved the moon it would be possible.

  10. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 9:20 am | #10

    Passenger service rail would easily loose 5 times as much money as they would ever make…

    Could Arkley even afford this? Maybe he could paint the train Home Depot orange to get some help.

  11. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 9:27 am | #11

    Ahh, let the propaganda resume…

  12. Jane Doe
    November 30, 2007 at 9:32 am | #12

    So in other words, 9:16, you have no source, just wishful thinking? Or should that be hateful thinking? Blaming progressives for all your disappointments in life is delusional, seek help.

  13. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 9:33 am | #13

    Passenger service? It’s at least a 14-hour ride to Willits. Without stops. 15 mph or something silly like that. If you wanted to go faster, you’d need magnets on bottom of the train, like one of those old slot cars we played with as kids.

  14. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 9:45 am | #14

    “Humboldt Bay is “not suitable” for modern cargo operations.”

    Don’t worry the Harbor District will vote to waste more time and money on this dream.

  15. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 10:00 am | #15

    I think it should be called a “Its Not Feasible But You Should Spend Lots Time And Money Pursuing It Anyway Study.”

    I don’t think this is what the Headwaters Fund Board had in mind when they voted to fund this study.

  16. November 30, 2007 at 3:20 pm | #16

    This qoute From Hank’s article in this weeks NCJ pretty much sums up where the port and rail is headed next.

    “What matters now is that the authority has irretrievably pissed off not only the richest county in the United States of America, but also several high-powered environmental organizations. The Novato lawsuit is just round one, and in the long run it doesn’t really matter whether NCRA opponents win or lose. Since the NCRA is a public entity, ultimately a creature of the state of California, the next round of the battle will take place in the California legislature. And it’s there that the authority no longer has a country.”

  17. gulo gordo
    November 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm | #17

    Yep. The question now being whether they can kill this zombie train quickly enough to realize some real public benefits in the next decade or so.

  18. anon
    November 30, 2007 at 3:34 pm | #18

    Everybody who has actually ridden the train when it had passenger service knows that we need the train, and that track repair is part of the picture. Ever been to Europe in the springtime when the crews are repairing the winter damage? They “pour money” into their infrastructure year after year because it’s good for trade, a convenience to the citizens , saves fuel and is more efficient and less polluting than the current crazy system of government subsidies of highways while starving the railroads. Anything is “feasible” if there’s a political will. We can have both rails AND trails if we want to but if the current campaign to kill the rail prevails, this community will have taken a major step in the wrong direction.

  19. November 30, 2007 at 3:44 pm | #19

    I think the rail killed itself.

  20. gulo gordo
    November 30, 2007 at 3:58 pm | #20

    Anything is “feasible” if there’s a political will.

    I think I just pissed myself laughing. “Feasible” doesn’t mean “could be done for an unlimited amount of money.”

    I’m really sorry that you railfans are so upset about this, but passenger service is so far from practical on this line that it’s much better described as “infeasible.” Now get over it, and let’s move on.

    We’ll support your silly excursion train if and only if you guys stop blocking trails. Now.

  21. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 4:21 pm | #21

    Passenger rail is inevitable after freight service is established. It’s those 15 chess moves. You guys have done an excellent job of framing the issue away from your real concerns, and our media bought it. Kudos.

  22. Frightwing Nightmare
    November 30, 2007 at 4:43 pm | #22

    I don’t know ANYONE who is opposed to passenger and freight rail service here. There are geological, environmental, and economic problems that have nothing to do with rails versus trails, if I read the news correctly. There are also issues in Marin County that have nothing to do with our issues. There is ONE track up here. That is for both directions, freight and passenger. I think it would be more feasible and probably cheaper in the long run to build a new rail system over a new route with fewer geological problems, if there is one. Private cars using nonrenewable energy can’t continue forever. I can’t help but wonder what things would be like if we had decided to build a Euro style train system all over the country rather than spend the megagazillions on highways and private cars, not to mention what we have spent on oil. That would be the price at the pump, the price to secure it, and the environmental damage it has caused.

  23. November 30, 2007 at 4:46 pm | #23

    … and our media bought it.

    If that’s a jab at me, as I suppose it is, I’d like to note that I’ve been covering the railroad since back when it was actually running some trains. In other words, I was covering the railroad before Mike Buettner ever heard of it. I was covering the railroad back when Heraldo was smoking bong resin in his dorm room.

    Here’s a story from four and a half years ago. Note the title. Prophetic, eh? This was written right as the Island Mountain gravel plan was first being floated. From the article:

    Given the likely scale of gravel extraction in the canyon under the private investor’s plan — $55 million in rock to recoup costs, to say nothing of profit, is a lot of rock — it wouldn’t be surprising to see Humboldt County’s corps of direct-action specialists climb down from their treesits to lash themselves to the tracks. That’s on top of the certain legal challenges from groups like the Environmental Protection and Information Center [sic] and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, both of which had stated their opposition to the railroad even before the gravel plan was announced.

    Whaddya know?

  24. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 5:00 pm | #24

    Not a jab specifically at you Hank; you’re just one in a crowd.

  25. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 5:05 pm | #25

    Hank, here’s how it works. Group A learns about Plan B and worries that Plan C could happen as a result. Group A can’t attack Plan C because that plan is not even on the table, so it digs deep into Plan B on whatever angles it can find. If Group A finds legitimate concerns it should be attacking anyway in Plan B, well, bonus!

    The 101 interchange is an easier example. There was a very real concern the interchange at the cutoff would enable greater development in Freshwater, so the interchange was attacked from every angle possible. Freshwaster development wasn’t exactly at the top of the list of grievances mentioned in public.

  26. November 30, 2007 at 6:30 pm | #26

    5:05 — Yes, that’s Politics 101. But what’s the “C” is this case? I don’t see it. Seems to me that most rail detractors are squarely focused on “B.”

  27. Ben
    November 30, 2007 at 6:39 pm | #27

    Is anyone looking at the numbers here. 3,000 containers per ship? That can’t be right. I want to ach the rail buffs as they wait at Alton for a mile and a half long train.

  28. anon
    November 30, 2007 at 7:53 pm | #28

    Sims’ glee at every setback the train suffers is unseemly in a “journalist” with any pretentions to objectivity. Oh, my mistake. He has none.

  29. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 8:11 pm | #29

    Yup, I’m just so desperately in need to walk a nature trail RIGHT NEXT TO THE EXHAUST FUMES AND LOGGING TRUCKS ON THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. This isn’t enviornmentalism folks, its extremism. Trails put in right next to highways in the Bay Area proved to garner low usage because of the putrid car fumes, noise and general unpleasantness, even with Bay views in their case too. The real solution is a Samoa-Manila trail and a new pedestrian bridge to Eureka. But that’d require some real imagination, wouldn’t it? Not like some cash-flush yuppie jerks like REDDING made something like that happen recently, would it?

  30. November 30, 2007 at 8:39 pm | #30

    Snooze.

  31. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 8:51 pm | #31

    Yes Hank, you don’t see it. That’s the whole point. Plan C is passenger rail. No one is proposing it, but it’s a recognized threat if freight becomes reality. So freight must be opposed and every argument possible must be made against it.

    In other words, if you could satisfy every environmental concern tied to freight, key opponents would still be opposed because the underlying threat of passenger rail takes a step forward. New arguments would be made, or concessions made would be deemed not good enough, and at that point Hank you would begin to feel the opponents aren’t being reasonable, but that’s all. You’d think them unreasonable, but still not see Plan C.

  32. November 30, 2007 at 9:45 pm | #32

    Passenger rail is a “threat”?!? In God’s name, to whom?

    Are you saying that General Motors is behind the trail movement, or what are you saying?

  33. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 10:13 pm | #33

    Hank, passenger rail brings more tourists and visitors to the North Coast. As transportation barriers break down, our area becomes more attractive to people relocating, retirees who still need access to the bay area (for example, Kaiser-insured seniors who won’t move here now because their hospital chain doesn’t exist here), and of course people buying vacation homes.

    In short, more people means more development. That is the reality seen in the chess game for someone looking some moves ahead in the game. As was said earlier with the NRA example, opposition is raised at any prospect, no matter how small or unlikely.

    The same goes for the 101 interchange, Richardson Grove, etc. Anything that hinders motorized transportation into or out of natural areas is perceived as a threat.

    The rail trail is a good because if it impacts population movement (housing) at all, it would be centered around our existing cities, concentrating them in already developed zones.

    It’s a shame no local publication has a political reporter, meaning one who sees beyond the surface arguments.

  34. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 10:15 pm | #34

    er, typo. Anything that hinders motorized transportation into or out of natural areas is perceived as GOOD. (Road improvements, rail improvements, etc. are bad.)

  35. Anonymous
    November 30, 2007 at 10:20 pm | #35

    All of this has already been rehashed in this thread. I don’t know how many times it needs to be retyped. General Motors? No. Progressive environmentalists are behind the trail movement, or to see it another way, behind the anti-rail movement. A trail is nice for a variety of reasons, but the broader inspiration is the fight to guarantee rail remains dead, thus providing another hedge to slow land development in the region.

    Trail proponents have been around for decades, and ignored for decades. Why the attention now? Rail.

    Trail proponents have a bunch of new allies, like-minded allies, but still allies that didn’t give a rats ass until they became concerned about rail.

  36. November 30, 2007 at 10:53 pm | #36

    Dude, you’re paranoid. The NCRA can’t even find enough money to fund a study to find out how much money it would need to open the line through the Canyon for freight. Whatever that number is, it’s in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Those hundreds of millions don’t get you a passenger-ready rail. They get you the lowest FRA safety class, and trains that travel at 15 m.p.h. max. Passenger rail of the type you’re talking — blue-haired seniors whizzing back and forth for their doctors appointments — would literally cost billions more, if it isn’t completely physically impossible.

    All this, plus the fact that the federal government currently subsidizes Amtrak to the tune of $1.3 billion per year, and is now in the process of lopping 40 percent off of that budget, and still you think that someone is itching to run a passenger train 300 miles from the city to nowhere?

    It’s a shame no local publication has a political reporter, meaning one who sees beyond the surface arguments.

    Well, I’ll have to pop a couple of peyote buttons to catch up with you. Or else just completely give in to schizophrenia.

  37. November 30, 2007 at 11:03 pm | #37

    Oh, and BTW? Richardson Grove?

    So you’re saying that the NEC is throwing down over Richardson Grove because the Caltrans improvements might conceivably cut as much as 20 seconds off the commute time between here and San Francisco? And so the NEC must stop Caltrans at any cost, because that 20-second improvement will lead to hordes of emigrants coming up from the City and moving to Humboldt?

    Okaaaaaay…

  38. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 3:23 am | #38

    Those hundreds of millions don’t get you a passenger-ready rail.

    You fail to understand the domino theory that drives all activism, left and right. Money is a delay, not an obstacle. You don’t seem to see beyond 10 or 20 years at a time.

    Oh, and BTW? Richardson Grove?

    Again, domino theory. First, big trucks come through. Then they want the road widened. Then they want, then they want, then they want.

    Think that sounds crazy? Look at the NRA and it’s don’t-give-an-inch strategy. It’s the same sort of thing. Fight everything. And hey, the rightwing in this county does it too on development issues. It’s just funny that you don’t “get it” yet.

  39. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 3:35 am | #39

    Hank, ask a conservative and a progressive political science professor their opinions. This isn’t some new idea. It plays out in cities and counties across this country every day.

  40. Ben
    December 1, 2007 at 8:26 am | #40

    Hank is exactly right on his financial look at the railroad. It ain’t gonna happen. With the price of fuel going through the roof, we sure might expect a well designed bus system on 101. Will Amtrak cuts affect the local bus? I hope not as its a great way to get to the Bay Area but very few people use it. We are a spoiled bunch up here. Gotta stop, I’m off to Ukiah.

  41. neomoderate
    December 1, 2007 at 8:47 am | #41

    Anon, the trail advocates (me included) are mostly pissed that the rail advocates are (A) Stalling trail improvements in the hope that someday, oh someday, we might have a rail again. (B) Lying through their teeth (2011?!) in order to get money from the govt. (C) Telling conflicting stories depending on what they want from the recipient of their lies.

    Oh that, and the rail would be a giant money pit. No way it’s financially viable, I mean assuming it could turn a meager profit, how long is it going to take to repay the billion dollar investment to get it going (in the real world, that’s what it would take). What about the corresponding port investment? What if we took a third of that money, improved our fiberoptic connectivity, and spent the rest on community infrastructure to make Humboldt a more attractive place to live? It’d affect a broader slice of folks, for sure.

    Not sure what the problem is with Indianola – people are going to continue to die there, especially as we get more traffic, and we need to think ahead to what traffic will be like in ten years, ’cause that’s how long it takes to build stuff like that. Yes, people die at signals. All the time. The interchange maybe growth-inducing, maybe not, but It’s the one place we really do need an interchange. I’m a pretty active environmentalist, but knee-jerk activism drives me mad. Gotta think, compromise and be reasonable while moving forward… One person dies because of either form of resistance (rail/enviro), and I’m gonna be truly pissed.

  42. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 8:50 am | #42

    Ben said: Hank is exactly right on his financial look at the railroad. It ain’t gonna happen.

    I said: That point is irrelevant because it ignores what drives activism. In other words, it’s the false argument made to avoid addressing the real one.

  43. Gregg
    December 1, 2007 at 9:06 am | #43

    Hank,

    I’m pretty unconcerned about the hordes from the Bay Area. It’s the hordes from Willits that scare the hell out of me. Of course, I moved up from down south….Miranda. Thank god it’s mostly four lanes or I might still be down there trying to figure out how to get out.

  44. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 9:08 am | #44

    Anyhow, I’m done “debating.” Every successive message ignores addressing my point and repeats the same old arguments that are really beside the point. Sigh.

    Now resume the propaganda…

  45. December 1, 2007 at 9:18 am | #45

    Anon 9:08 am:

    A point being ignored must not be a very good one.

    -boy

  46. anon
    December 1, 2007 at 9:45 am | #46

    Of COURSE passenger service is not “economically viable”. That’s why every county on earth subsidizes its rail as a public service. The Canadian government is spending $700 M to upgrade their rail for “a stronger economy. a cleaner environment and a safer Canada,” while we continue to starve our rail and subsidize the trucking, highway and oil industries. Mr Sims is correct (yes!) that Amtrak receives a $1.3M subsidy but let’s add that it generates the rest of its $3M budget from passenger revenues. In Union City they’re building a BART/rail station (connecting to the popular Capital Corridor service to Sacto) which will be entirely solar-powered. In Illinois you get a flyer with your driver’s license renewal which urges drivers to use Amtrak and includes the schedules with a big banner across the top saying “$$SAVE GAS$$. ” etc etc. Thanks to RAILPAC for the foregoing information and now I’m going Christmas shopping but I can’t hop a train to Arcata. Trails are fine but we need both.

  47. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 9:57 am | #47

    “That’s why every county on earth subsidizes its rail as a public service.”

    The main point here is that we are not one of those countries. That is the context and reality that escapes so many here in the Humboldt bubble. When we become one of those countries? I don’t know. But I do know that when a train of any kind is both feasible and necessary a trail will not stand in its way.

  48. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 10:14 am | #48

    Boy, or it’s a point you cannot refute.

  49. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 10:22 am | #49

    “I’m going Christmas shopping but I can’t hop a train to Arcata.”

    You could take the bus, it exsists now.

  50. elk ridge willie
    December 1, 2007 at 10:32 am | #50

    Just for the record: Hank, you deserve a huge hand for standing all alone in the alt.mainstream media with informed commentary and actual reporting (!) on train issues. I’ve been watching it and whining for only 10 years, pleased with the slow penetration of reality despite our elected representatives. We’re approaching end times.

    You need only add that our little railroad that can’t, can’t even write an imaginary budget for routine maintenance of its right-of-way. Their wildest pipe-dreams wouldn’t pay for winter repairs! So Humboldt would continue to panhandle Sacto and DC after every storm, where we’ll continue to get the attentive ear and smart service we get now . . . well, you know, at least in our pot price-support programs. But wait a sec–even *that* isn’t working! Aw shit, I hate reporters.

  51. December 1, 2007 at 12:29 pm | #51

    Elk Ridge: Cheers!

    Gregg: You should see the blowback I’m getting from my colleagues in the Willits cabal. We’ve been plotting to take over Humboldt from the inside for years now. Ever since I came out of the closet as a Willite they’ve been screaming that I’ve screwed up the gameplan.

    Remember Jason Kirkpatrick? He was our trial balloon.

  52. December 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm | #52

    Hank has the NCRA pegged. It is unfortunate to have to argue feasibility points with those who have not bothered to read the details. Pretty much everything Hank is stating is right there in the NCRA’s own documents. They are sometimes a lot to dig through… but it is all there.

  53. anon
    December 1, 2007 at 12:39 pm | #53

    Can we start a Willits thread? What’s the story on the fabulous BBQ in the back of the Phoenix bakery? I found them in May. Have they survived? I love Willetts.

  54. December 1, 2007 at 1:19 pm | #54

    I have been involved in promoting trails for a number of years. That includes being a member of the Eureka City Trails Committee, one of the founders of the Trails Trust of Humboldt Bay and I currently sit on the Eureka Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission.

    I have never heard anyone suggest the rail in general as a negative. In fact it has only become a topic of recent because of the HCAOG study on the Eureka/Arcata rail trail corridor.

    To think that the dozens (hundreds) of folks who act proactively to promote trails do so as a way to defeat rail is not only ridiculous but insulting.

  55. December 1, 2007 at 1:28 pm | #55

    Correction:

    To think that to say the dozens (hundreds) of folks who act proactively to promote trails do so as a way to defeat rail is not only ridiculous but insulting.

  56. December 1, 2007 at 2:13 pm | #56

    Can we start a Willits thread?

    Done.

  57. gulo gordo
    December 1, 2007 at 2:57 pm | #57

    I am vexed by anonymous person upthread who postulates that passenger rail is the real thing the enviros are fighting. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s a projectionist attacking the motivations he’s falsely imputed to others.

    For the record, I oppose the NCRA for a bunch of reasons, but I’d be a slightly less opposed if there were any realistic prospect of passenger service along the Eel. There isn’t. None. Zero.

    I love riding the train. I ride the train when I can, especially on the East Coast and in the Bay Area. The last time I took a long trip on the West Coast, I was half a day late arriving on a trip from central California to northern Oregon, and had the enormous pleasure of sitting near a motormouth Deadhead on a handful of acid all night long. As many others have pointed out, a passenger system that can’t even run effectively on the easy ground and functional rails elsewhere sure as shit isn’t going to ever make the NCRA work.

    So if you’re going to keep pissing and moaning about how we’re just trying to kill your dreams of passenger rail, I’m going to start in on your failure to support my dream — daily express flights from Trinidad to Table Bluff to Mount Tam on steampunk zepplins. That’s pretty much as realistic, and it’d be even cooler than a train.

  58. December 1, 2007 at 3:01 pm | #58

    Well for that matter Stephen Lewis’s idea for a solar rail sounds more feasible than the NCRA dream.

  59. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 4:34 pm | #59

    Sorry NCRA buffs

    The future of passenger rail is the high speed version

    And you’ll never see this in Humboldt

    Let’s hope we see it in the more feasible routes in the state

  60. December 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm | #60

    Steampunk zeppelins. You slay me.

  61. Gregg
    December 1, 2007 at 5:11 pm | #61

    Thai food at Al’s Redwood Room.

    Everytime I pass under the arch, I start to hear voices telling me to do inappropriate things… There’s more than neon in that thing.

  62. gulo gordo
    December 1, 2007 at 8:51 pm | #62

    We could name ‘em appropriately: the Hooter, Honey, Blunt…

    The Pinner of course would handle the local loop to Willer Crick, up to Hoopa, Klamath, CCity and back.

    I’m telling ya, the hard-currency adventure tourists will eat it up. Germans, Chinese… even Canadians looking for cheap fun.

  63. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 9:18 pm | #63

    I like ziss shteampoonk zeppelin idea Mr Gordo, could you pleeze elaborate on ziss for me.

  64. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 9:40 pm | #64

    How’d ya like a hockey puck up yer ass, eh?

  65. gulo gordo
    December 1, 2007 at 9:54 pm | #65

    Is that a Canadian feelin’ high on dollar-ten loonies?
    Maybe stick to curling until it wears off, eh?

  66. Anonymous
    December 1, 2007 at 10:10 pm | #66

    Curling’s on hold till we get these disoriented polar bears outta the rink thanks to yer greenhouse gas flatulence down there, eh.

  67. anon
    December 2, 2007 at 9:03 am | #67

    “To think that to say the dozens (hundreds) of folks who act proactively to promote trails do so as a way to defeat rail is not only ridiculous but insulting.”

    I’m not sure anyone on this long thread actually said that.

  68. gulo gordo
    December 3, 2007 at 10:05 am | #68

    “to say that…folks who act proactively to promote trails do so as a way to defeat rail is not only ridiculous but insulting.”
    I’m not sure anyone on this long thread actually said that.

    The very first commenter said that.

    the sneaker issue not discussed is the real opposition to rail: passenger rail

    They then repeated it six ways to Sunday. As if that makes it less stupid.

    could you pleeze elaborate on ziss shteampoonk zeppelin idea Mr Gordo

    In good weather, cruising in relative quiet over the stunning Lost Coast, seacliffs, river canyons and redwood canopy at a cruise-ship distance. In lousy weather, soaring in the sunshine above the clouds.

    Highly fuel-efficient and manueverable rigid lighter-than-air craft with 21st century engines, navigation, and controls, but styled in the passenger quarters to evoke the 19th: crystal portholes, judicious use of brass and wood. A catwalk to the forward observation dome.

    Still slower than driving, but so much more elegant. And with on-board wifi, you can still pretend to work when you’re not rubbernecking at the still-smoking ruins of Rohnert Park.

  69. Anonymous
    December 3, 2007 at 3:48 pm | #69

    And now on to something Truly Significant:

    Does anybody remember how loud the old trains used to be? Waking up working people and even non-working people in the middle of the night? Adding to our stress levels? Reducing our efficiency the next day at work? Huh? Do you remember that?

    Now picture a Mega-Freight Train. Bigger. Louder. Rolling right through the most heavily populated city in Humboldt County. (Eureka, for you newcomers.)

    Suddenly, your Railroad has thousands of angry, upset, sleep-deprived people. Rising up in angry opposition to further interuptions of their sleep.

    You think you’ve seen a controversy over the rails? Hah! You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers